Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Stupid article. It’s sad to think that social conservatives should need any defending.
By the way Gay marriage ban passed in every state that offered the choice, but the wall street shcills failed horribly.
Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights.
and so is the New Deal and any new socialism Obama comes up with. Well, none of them are, actually, but the SC, prez and legislative branch won’t do anything about it.
Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.
He comes close to capturing my sentament: I was (maybe..someday) write an article which linked Constitutionalism as the glue which makes Libertarianism=Tradtional values get along.
Although I wish this author would come to know Christ, it’s at least awesome he’s open.
how could social conservatism lose when it wasn’t even present in this last election?
Preach on, sister!
I’d like to add, and this is a very important point: “social conservatives” are what won the GOP the White House in 2000 and 2004. People fed up with the laissez faire sexuality and pro-abortion policies of the Clinton administration went for Bush, and in 2004 had it not been for gay marriage bans in so many key states on the ballot, they could easily have lost that one.
So what happened in 2006 and 2008? In each case the GOP fought the last election, in 2006 and 2008 it ran on a platform of national security. “Values” was not any part of it. It took Sarah Palin to single-handedly raise abortion as an issue, and had she gotten a little back up it might have worked! The media wasn’t reporting on Obama’s radical pro-abortion stance, and one single veep candidate ain’t going to get the message across herself.
Find a single instance of “social conservatism” making the GOP lose. Heck, even in California the gay marriage ban passed.
This is pure scapegoating with no evidence to back it up. Why should I even respect their argument when it is simply rhetoric with no facts?
Also, the only libertarian position on abortion is to be against it. Libertarianism is all about protecting rights and freedom and personal sovereignty. That’s hard to do when you allow the most vulnerable members of society to be murdered in the womb. Life is the FIRST right.
There is nothing fiscally conservative about social liberalism.... When people play someone has to PAY, and most usually the liberal method is to pass on the cost of playing around to everyone. Just look at all the ‘good’ Samaritan legislation past over the past 70 years and are we any better for it? NO!!!
Social conservatives are the only reason McCain did so well. 26% of the electorate (up from 24% in 2004) were evangelicals and voted for McCain with Bush-level numbers.
McCain screwed the pooch with the fiscal conservatives.
As I recall, the ‘values voter’ was very instrumental in getting McCain through the back door of the primaries. The values voters stuck with Huckabee, which siphoned votes from much more general appealing candidates to the other wings of the GOP faction. My first choice would have been Thompson. My next one, in Thompson’s absence, would have been Giuliani. And Giuliani was outright rejected by SoCons because of two key issues (he would not have pushed a pro-life agenda and did not have a tough enough stance on homosexuality [some also content he would have been a gun-grabber because of his policies he pushed for in NYC while a mayor]). However, Giuliani would have been a superior (in my opinion) candidate to McCain, Huckabee, or Romney.
Using the National Journal's ratings of Senators in 2007 , the correlation coefficient between "economic" scores and "social" scores is 90%. That means they almost always go together; financial conservatives are social conservatives and vice versa. Every Senator scoring above 60 in economic issues, scored above 50 in social ones. Every Senator scoring below 40 in economic issues, scored below 50 in social ones. If there is such an animal as a "financial conservative, social liberal", it does not exist in the US Senate.
Thanks for posting.
Next we need an article setting straight the soCons who think they can ditch the econoCons.
All three legs of the conservative stool are necessary to win elections.
The recent eharmony lawsuit is strong evidence that libertarians and social conservatives have significant common interests. I don’t even have to give two sides-— neither would want a private business to be forced to accommodate homosexuality if it violates the owner’s conscience.
Social conservatism is taking a beating lately.Huh. Amazing remark, considering that California -- one of the most flat on the floor liberal havens on the planet, with perhaps a fifth of its population made up of illegal immigrants -- just decisively rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. Thanks neverdem.